this conversation is almost making me look at my own software - I have
always assumed that there are many formulas in space syntax that were not
well formulated originally, and that these issues are resolved when
programmed. For example the definition of integration in the Social Logic
of Space is not in the reciprocal form that is needed when one speaks of
high or low integration but this gets corrected in the software. Time for
some standard graph theoretic statements I think of all the formulas
used
Mike
At 13:37 19/12/2005, Lucas Figueiredo wrote:
Hello Sheep.
No one is counting from 0. A single topological step means depth 1.
There is no topological step from a given line to itself.
I know that arrays are confusing in some old programming languages
(I
also programmed in ANSI C and Pascal) and sometimes we are obliged
to
change outputs because such limitations of data structure.
However, I read lots of papers using R3 and I always understood this
radius as 3 steps away, not 2. I also think that in my MSc
dissertation wrote that R3 (3 steps) is the local standard radius
(which is wrong).
These things (interpretations, implementations) must be clear.
That is why I reinforce that academic software must be properly
published AND cited - because it is part of the methodology you use
in
experiments. I think we must put it in our software licence "cite
it,
otherwise do not use it".
Regards!
Lucas
On 19/12/05, Nick Dalton <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hi the code in axman was designed to be output compatible with
the
> fortran code. as a 'C' programmer I found it an odd switch (
and
> still do).
>
> People typically count from one (1,2,3,4) it's only C programmers
(
> and their children) that count from 0. Fortran and Pascal
(object
> pascal being the language of Axman) use 1 based indexs for arrays
and
> so number systems. Everything also had to be compatible with
the
> output of the social logic of space ( with the D value).
>
> Zero depth makes sense to me but non programmers got there
first.
>
> so R2 = r3, r3=r4 and r2=r1, which can be said to eliminate a
problem ( no r1).
>
> Using R2 (ie old R3 )You may noticed more glitches in radius 2 due
to
> poor micro-structure.
>
> sheep
>
> >Dear Lucas,
> >
> >Yes, this is the same in Depthmap: R2 is the equivalent of R3 in
axman.
> >
> >I have always said that this makes sense: two steps away is to
my
> >mind R2, not R3.
> >
> >As for handling low numbers of lines within (Depthmap's) radius
two,
> >undefined values (nulls) are given in the (small number of)
cases
> >where there are too few lines to calculate RRA.
> >
> >Alasdair
> >
>
Michael Batty Director Centre for Advanced Spatial Analysis (CASA)
University College London - 1-19 Torrington Place - London - WC1E 6BT
UK
_______________________________________________________________
tel 44 (0) 207 679 1781 fax 44 (0) 207 813 2843 mobile 44 (0) 7768
423 656
Personal Web
Page ·
http://www.casa.ucl.ac.uk/people/MikesPage.htm
Recent Books
· Cities and
Complexity ·
http://www.complexcity.info/
GIS, Spatial Analysis and
Modeling ·
http://www.casa.ucl.ac.uk/GIS/